The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

There is not a valid religious argument against Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 286 times Debate No: 89896
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I am extremely socially liberal, and one of the things that drives me bonkers is when people use Christianity to condemn gay marriage. It is absolutely shocking how backwards this is, the same type of logic was used to condone slavery and the mistreatment of women. For a religion that is supposed to be about love and forgiveness, Christianity has spawned and awful lot of hate. Besides the fact that no person with any sort of moral compass would prevent a gay couple from being together unless they were completely blinded by their faith, there isn't really even a valid religious argument in it. For starters, there are 5 verses in the bible that "condemn" homosexuality (they don't really, but I'll get to that in second) and over 2000 about being performing acts of love and charity in the name of God. For whatever reason, people choose to ignore those other 2000 and instead choose to go to anti-gay rallies and chant how God hates fgs. This is also completely irrational. These people must be reading a completely different book when the read the Bible. Some of the most important ideas of the Bible are these: "God loves ALL his children". This means exactly what it said. If you be believe in an Abrahamic God, you would most likely believe the idea that he created every human being in his image. Therefore, he chose to make these individuals gay. Please do not use the excuse that gay people are sick or faking it or confused, why would anyone put themselves in a position to be discriminated against? One of the biggest proponents of tolerance of gay marriage in the Bible is Jesus' Golden Rule. It states "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". If you had something wrong with you, would you want to be treated the way some people treat people who are homosexual? Unless you are a perfect person, you are in absolutely no position to judge somebody for their sins. Telling someone who is gay that they are going to hll is a completely subjective argument. I find it hard to believe that someone could be gay and spend their whole life doing good works in the name of God, and go to hell. Even if you think they are you are in no position to judge as no one is not a sinner. Finally, the story of Sodom and Gommorah; IT IS NOT ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY, I HAVE THE VERSE RIGHT HERE!!! "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Read it and weep. Just for good measure, I would like to add that Pope Francis said If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge? We shouldn't marginalize people for this. They must be integrated into society." So there you have it, the highest figure in the Catholic Church is completely tolerant of homosexuality. I would like to add I was raised Catholic and attend Church weekly.


I will be arguing that there are valid religious arguments against gay marriage.

Now, I am a libertarian. I'm am not for the banning of gay marriage. But, saying that no religion can call gay marriage a sin is a lie. First, let me respond to the tirade about hating people. There is a phrase that says "love the sinner but hate the sin". Sin is sin. It as simple as that. If in its interpretation of scripture a religion finds that homosexuality is a sin, than it is a sin. Now, to claim that sin gives you grounds to hate someone is a lie. I'm not here to defend those people.

Here is a hypothetical question. If someone steals from their neighbor, what should happen? Should the members of the church hate that person? Should they change their beliefs so that the thief is made to feel better about their sin? Neither. Sin is sin, no matter who does it, or whether they have done good elsewhere. Justice demands that if a law is broken, someone must suffer the punishment. Nothing more than that, such as having people hate you. And nothing less, such as having your sin be erased from the doctrine of the church.

Hate does not factor into this question whatsoever. This is whether there is scripture which is against gay marriage.

Now back to the question. In my religion, which is the LDS religion, we have continued revelation. And we have received revelation explicitly stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, my religion has a valid argument against gay marriage.

Please note that I have proved that a religion has grounds for being against gay marriage, therefore winning the debate.

Now, I realize that when you said religion, you meant something along the lines of the Catholic Church, so I will continue to debate you based on the grounds of the bible alone. And, although there are still fallacies in your argument, I've spoken enough and reclarified the debate, I will end this round and allow you to respond.
Debate Round No. 1


I suppose I see your argument, and I apologize for not including other aspects of Religion.

Let me combat your hypothetical question with a question of my own. During the Civil Rights Movement, there were many people who used The Bible to condone slavery, a practice I think we can both be in agreement is horrible and a huge violation of Human Rights. They often pointed to the verse "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." (Peter 2:18: ). There are also verses in the BoM that point to people of African descent being inferior such as: "dark skin is a sign of God"s curse, while white skin is a sign of his blessing. When the Lamanites displease God, "because of their iniquity".the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them" (2 Nephi 5:21). The point I am making, is just because there are places in the Bible or BoM that support racism and enslavement, does that make them ok?

I am not refuting the fact that they are places in Abrahmic Scripture that could be interpreted as anti-gay, but that does not make them any more correct. The other aspect of the argument is that some of the stories and verses used to support homosexuality and delegalization of gay marriage are up for interpretation. You can find verses in the Bible to condone incest! If you are basing your views on a subject off a scripture written thousands of years ago, than you are operating on a very low moral level of reasoning. Using this logic, you could interpret a Mormon, Islamic, Christian, or Jewish verse in ANY way you wanted to, and according to you that makes it valid because it is someone's interpretation.

For instance, going back to the incest point, the Bible explicitly states: Abraham said, "Because I thought, surely there is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife. Besides, she actually is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife; and it came about, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said to her, 'This is the kindness which you will show to me: everywhere we go, say of me, He is my brother.""

The point I am making is that while there may be many interpretations of verses in different scripture that condone Homosexuality, (especially in Mormonis, you have a whole webpage but that does not make them correct, logical, or even universally accepted. My point being that it is interpretation, which is personal. Denying people their happiness is a violation of Human Rights and is wrong. Worry about your own sins and atoning for those before you interfere with someone else's lifestyle and choices.


I will answer your question, but I hope that you will answer my question.

So, the Book of Mormon speaks in favor of racism? Well, you could interpret it that way. Your interpretation would be wrong though. Because in your example, you commit the problems that you rail against. First, you sparingly quote the actual words. Second, you don't provide context either before or after the verse. Here are the actual words.

"20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."

The cursing was basically to separate the Nephites and Lamanites. The cursing followed disobedience, not their skin color.

The first of these points that I would like to discuss is the partial reading of any scripture. For example, a single line in a verse could say that, "the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up". That is definitely in the scriptures. But the words "as if" are omitted. Without those words, you could interpret it as a prophesy telling people to commit revolution, or that rods would all of the sudden move without anyone there. But the scriptures aren't subjective. People may interpret scriptures in different ways, but saying that every interpretation is right isn't true.;

So, if you believe that your book of scripture is perfect, all you have to do to find the truth is go throughout the entire book to find what it teaches. But, you don't hold the Bible to be applicable today. At least not entirely. So, you need extra authority to back up whatever claim that you may have. Now, once again, no one has an agreed upon authority, but certain religions do have prophets, other scriptures, or traditions. I don't know what you believe in.

In summary, there is no one universal scripture or authority which declares homosexuality a sin, mainly because there is no universal authority. Each religion has its own truth, and its own viewpoint on gay marriage and homosexuality. But to say that they have no grounds for being against it is wrong. You have admitted that there are scriptures up for interpretation that condemn homosexuality, and that certain religious authorities are against it.

I will now allow you to respond to any points that you see here. I have already said more than I wanted to, and I had to rewrite everything twice.
Debate Round No. 2


thegingerrrrr forfeited this round.


I have answered the question. Is there a valid religious argument against gay marriage? My opponent has admitted as much. Each religion has different interpretations for scriptures, along with continuing revelation and other religious traditions. Whether these interpretations are correct or not isn't taken into account. The only question is if there is a valid argument, as there clearly is.

Thank you thegingerrrrr for this chance to debate.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Jonbonbon 6 months ago
To be valid, an argument just needs to be free of internal contradictions and flow from one point to the next.

Modus ponens is always valid even if it isn't true.
No votes have been placed for this debate.